the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Microwave Scattering Database of Oriented Ice and Snow Particles: Supporting Habit-Dependent Growth Models and Radar Applications (McRadar 1.0.0)
Abstract. The optical properties of atmospheric hydrometeors are a crucial component of any forward operator. These forward operators are essential data assimilation, and atmospheric model evaluations. Recent advances in microphysical modelling, such as Lagrangian super-particle models with habit prediction for ice particles, allow for the continuous evolution of particle properties in contrast to fixed hydrometer classes with fixed properties. This increasing complexity demands scattering databases capable of handling a wide range of particle properties.
The discrete dipole approximation (DDA) is one of the most accurate and widely used methods for computing the scattering properties of irregular ice particles. However, its high computational cost typically limits either the diversity of particle shapes or the range of environmental parameters (e.g., frequency, temperature) represented in existing databases, constraining their applicability to models with highly variable microphysics.
In this study, we present a new DDA-based database of optical properties at 5.6, 9.6, 35.6, and 94 GHz, specifically designed to accommodate the broad range of ice crystal morphologies predicted by habit-evolving schemes. The database contains 2,627 individual ice crystals, including dendrites, plates, and columns, as well as 450 aggregates with varying degrees of riming and crystal types. The data are organized in three levels: Level 0 provides raw scattering matrices at individual orientations for a full range of scattering angles; level 1a summarizes Mueller and amplitude matrix elements relevant for radar applications (at forward and backward scattering angles); and level 1b offers lookup tables of scattering properties that are relevant for polarimetric radars assuming azimuthally random orientations of the particles. These data allow for flexible treatment of the canting angle of the particles. The lookup tables are directly accessible via the McRadar simulator and can also be interfaced with other forward operators.
The new database allows for a more consistent and realistic treatment of evolving ice particle properties in atmospheric models, improving the interpretation of radar observations and model-observation integration.
- Preprint
(12759 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3910', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Oct 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leonie von Terzi, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3910/egusphere-2025-3910-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leonie von Terzi, 11 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3910', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2025
Please find the attached file of my review comments.
Necessary credits for figure 5 should be carefully checked before publishing on GMDD.Â
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leonie von Terzi, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3910/egusphere-2025-3910-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leonie von Terzi, 11 Dec 2025
-
CC1: 'Concerning DDA simulations', Maxim A. Yurkin, 31 Oct 2025
I find this paper very interesting and I am fascinated by the amount of DDA simulations performed by the authors. I have a few technical comments about these DDA simulations (mostly about their description in the paper):
1) Eq.(2) is probably taken from ADDA manual. However, in the case of the atmosphere, one can probably always replace k_sca by just k, which is always real. Then exponent will disappear and absolute value around k is redundant.
2) Concerning the name of the ADDA code, the official guideline is not to deabbreviate it - see https://github.com/adda-team/adda/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-official-name-of-the-code-what-does-a-stands-for . In other words, the standard naming is just ADDA.
3) In Sec. 3.3 there is a rather extensive description of assumptions concerning the orientation probability distribution. The authors may additionally note, as a first step, that general distribution f(α,β,γ) is assumed to be factorizable into three parts (it is not always possible). I guess, such factorization can be considered as a part of ARO assumption that is introduced further in the manuscript text.
4) I could not find a description of the ADDA parameters used for simulations. It would be great to specify them for the overall reproducibility, including the ADDA version, DDA formulation, and discretization. Mentioning that some parameters are set to default values will also be fine.
The authors mention that there exist level 0 with all the log files (which may answer the above question), but it seems that only levels 1 are available online, or not?
5) Some information can be reduced from the scripts to run ADDA simulations (thanks to authors for sharing them), for instance, this one - https://github.com/lterzi/DDA_database_gmd/blob/master/calculate_dda/DDA_aggregates_plates/print_adda_command_elevation.py . It contains the line:
opt='-pol ldr -int fcd -iter qmr2 -scat_matr both -dir '
This is surprising for me, since it combines LDR with FCD. Overall, I do not expect the results to depend significantly on the choice of polarizability (i.e., the results for `-pol fcd -int fcd ...` will probably be close). However, I am wandering, why the authors decided to use such a combination. If there is some explanation (rationale), it would be great to include it in the paper.
6) Whatever is the used DDA formulation and other parameters, the really important measure is the uncertainty of the DDA simulations (expected errors). Is there any estimate on that? I see `-jagged ...` in the above-mentioned script, which suggests that the authors did some accuracy studies.
I understand that, after all the averaging, the DDA uncertainties will most probably be negligible in comparison with other error sources. Still, just assuming that DDA results are exact seems to be not robust.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3910-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leonie von Terzi, 11 Dec 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3910/egusphere-2025-3910-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leonie von Terzi, 11 Dec 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,311 | 133 | 30 | 1,474 | 28 | 33 |
- HTML: 1,311
- PDF: 133
- XML: 30
- Total: 1,474
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See the attachment.